Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 21 2022

Consensual review edit

File:NATO_E3A_AWACS_Takeoff_Paine_Field_WA_Jul15_DSC8404.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination LX-N90459 - NATO Boeing E-3A Sentry AWACS, taking off, Paine Field, Everett, WA --Tagooty 05:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too noisy --Nino Verde 07:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see excess noise. Request other opinions, please. --Tagooty 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Done Reduced the chroma noise on undersides of wings. Please see new version. --Tagooty 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm OK with this version. -- Ikan Kekek 11:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Plaque_à_Jean_Bertrand_(Lyon)_en_janvier_2022.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Plaque à Jean Bertrand (Lyon) en janvier 2022. --Benoît Prieur 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Mahtamsv 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this is not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 15:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess it’s sharp enough --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough regarding the low resolution. Such kind of stills should have at least 6 MPiels nowadays. --Smial 01:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see why such a photo, which is a document, should have all these pixels --Moroder 08:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  Comment QI should have reasonable sharpness, and with such an easy to photograph still, I expect that you can print it out without visible blurring, at least on A4. You can't here. Of course, the text is perfectly legible, but that is not enough. Then we can promote printouts from paper fax machines soon. --Smial 10:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for QI. --Steindy 19:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Arri_35_BL.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Arriflex 35 BL-III movie camera (1998). By User:Runner1616 --Augustgeyler 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too much noise. --Steindy 00:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. This is not noise but grain. --Augustgeyler 00:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, it's grain, but the people in the background are too black. The subject is acceptably photographed, to my mind, so I'm torn on whether to support because of that or oppose on the basis that the people in the background are too distracting. Not being sure whether they are or not, I'm just leaving a comment for now. -- Ikan Kekek 13:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see your point. I did nominate this image, because of it's subject, this special type of Arri camera. I think there was a flashlight involved to show even the dark parts of that camera. This might explain the darkened parts in the background. --Augustgeyler 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The background lighting does not bother me. Would be good to indicate in the description that this is a scanned image of a print/negative. --Tagooty 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support It is good from my point of view, but there must be description that it is scanned film. --Nino Verde (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scan is very good, but the fill-in flash is badly flawed. This could have been done better with conventional film in the past. --Smial 02:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 09:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing luminance noise, fixable? --F. Riedelio 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  Comment This is scanned film image, so this is not noise, but grain. --Nino Verde (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Searching_the_night_sky.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Searching the night sky through a telescope. By User:Annatsach --Augustgeyler 01:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 10:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's difficult to take photos like this. The person in the foreground clearly has too much motion blur. --Steindy 13:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing chromatic noise. --F. Riedelio 18:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)